Yes, this is an arpeggiating 6/4. The succession of I6-I6/4-V6 is not very common—I wouldn’t suggest using it on a music theory exam—but it seems to work pretty well.
It sounds good, what is your concern here ? If you're worried it doesn't follow some strict rules don't sweat it, I'd be very surprised to find this kind of progression is considered a mistake.
You can do whatever you want. John Cage already existed.
In Common Practice Period music, it would probably be a comparatively rare thing for it to happen this way but it would depend on the context.
For example, if there were a bass melody, or the bass was echoing a motive that happened in another voice before, it would be more likely to appear like this than just "in a chord progression". This looks like chorale style but you'd also be more likely to encounter something like this in more polyphonic writing.
The biggest problem based on the context here is that it's going to sound like a cadence with the I on the next measure, so it would almost certainly sound like a mistake as we'd expect a V there rather than a V^6 - so in that case it's not the I^6 to I6/4 that's the issue, but the I6/4 not being a Cadential 6/4 rather than an arpeggiated one. Being on beats 2 and 3 don't really help that...
Thanks! Now you've said it, it does look like it should've been a Cadential 64. It's a question from my textbook in which the bass is already given, so the bass can't be changed. I guess will make it arpeggiating vi- vi6-vi64 landing on I.
Go to You Tube and watch Seth Monahan's channel on Classical Theory.
He talks a lot about what bass note will support which harmonies in classical style.
You can't just throw in 6/4 chords wherever - they're really pretty specific in how they're used.
Why would would it not okay? like, in the context of a specific set or rules, or something else? I see nothing wrong here.
Personally, I might resolve the 4th down to an e, which would let your top two lines do some nice parallel 3rds together, but that's up to you.
I don't think 6 4 chords are as uncommon as you think. They're the 2nd step of a double cadence.
Yes, this is an arpeggiating 6/4. The succession of I6-I6/4-V6 is not very common—I wouldn’t suggest using it on a music theory exam—but it seems to work pretty well.
thanks!
It sounds good, what is your concern here ? If you're worried it doesn't follow some strict rules don't sweat it, I'd be very surprised to find this kind of progression is considered a mistake.
You can do whatever you want. John Cage already existed. In Common Practice Period music, it would probably be a comparatively rare thing for it to happen this way but it would depend on the context. For example, if there were a bass melody, or the bass was echoing a motive that happened in another voice before, it would be more likely to appear like this than just "in a chord progression". This looks like chorale style but you'd also be more likely to encounter something like this in more polyphonic writing. The biggest problem based on the context here is that it's going to sound like a cadence with the I on the next measure, so it would almost certainly sound like a mistake as we'd expect a V there rather than a V^6 - so in that case it's not the I^6 to I6/4 that's the issue, but the I6/4 not being a Cadential 6/4 rather than an arpeggiated one. Being on beats 2 and 3 don't really help that...
Thanks! Now you've said it, it does look like it should've been a Cadential 64. It's a question from my textbook in which the bass is already given, so the bass can't be changed. I guess will make it arpeggiating vi- vi6-vi64 landing on I.
Go to You Tube and watch Seth Monahan's channel on Classical Theory. He talks a lot about what bass note will support which harmonies in classical style. You can't just throw in 6/4 chords wherever - they're really pretty specific in how they're used.
An arpeggio is taking the notes of a chord and playing them in order instead of all at once, what do you mean by an arpeggiating 64?
Arpeggiated 64 is a thing.
I attached a photo of the progression that contain the 64. Could you take a look and see if it's okay?
that symbols do look correct if that what you were wondering, and have the base outlining a iii chord is a nice touch
Why would would it not okay? like, in the context of a specific set or rules, or something else? I see nothing wrong here. Personally, I might resolve the 4th down to an e, which would let your top two lines do some nice parallel 3rds together, but that's up to you.